Unknown2006-04-01 01:02:25
This is something I've been pondering for a while, and I had an idea.. What if Lusternia(and other IREs might as well do it) were to create a subdomain, say "mud.lusternia.com" and have port 80 on that subdomain as an alternative connection site, preferably as a connection option in Nexus.
While many firewalls block port 23, almost none of them block port 80, since that's the HTTP port.
While many firewalls block port 23, almost none of them block port 80, since that's the HTTP port.
Daganev2006-04-01 01:31:28
Can port 80 handle that much bandwith from a mud?
Unknown2006-04-01 01:40:17
QUOTE(daganev @ Mar 31 2006, 05:31 PM) 275265
Can port 80 handle that much bandwith from a mud?
A port is just a port. Basically they'd just have to set up a forward for traffic using a tcp/ip service of some variety, or even just set up the server itself to listen on port 80 for incoming sockets.
Acrune2006-04-01 02:24:24
Ooh, a way to get around the unlikely event that my parents figure out how to block Lusternia. I like
Xavius2006-04-01 06:49:16
The rationale behind using port 23 is that it's actually the least likely to be blocked, since it's the default telnet port. At my old job, the only port that could be accessed through the telnet client that handled the company's systems was 23.
As far as the feasibility of mirrors...well, I'd rather have envoys done.
As far as the feasibility of mirrors...well, I'd rather have envoys done.
Ashteru2006-04-01 07:12:26
Isn't telnet the single most unsafe way to connect though? Since the data isn't decrypted when it is sent.
...Or something like that. Can't exactly remember what my prof said.
...Or something like that. Can't exactly remember what my prof said.
Unknown2006-04-01 07:17:57
QUOTE(Xavius @ Mar 31 2006, 10:49 PM) 275324
The rationale behind using port 23 is that it's actually the least likely to be blocked, since it's the default telnet port. At my old job, the only port that could be accessed through the telnet client that handled the company's systems was 23.
As far as the feasibility of mirrors...well, I'd rather have envoys done.
23 is more likely to be blocked than 80. 80 is HTTP
QUOTE(Ashteru @ Mar 31 2006, 11:12 PM) 275328
Isn't telnet the single most unsafe way to connect though? Since the data isn't decrypted when it is sent.
...Or something like that. Can't exactly remember what my prof said.
You're using the telnet protocol no matter how you play. Not even nexus uses SSL.
Ashteru2006-04-01 07:20:04
QUOTE(Visaeris Maeloch @ Apr 1 2006, 07:17 AM) 275329
23 is more likely to be blocked than 80. 80 is HTTP
You're using the telnet protocol no matter how you play. Not even nexus uses SSL.
Yeah, that I know. But since Telnet is so unsafe, we blocked it in our schoolnetwork.
Was just commenting on Xavius comment.
Daganev2006-04-01 19:36:32
port 23 is now one of the most popular ports to block if you know your not using telnet for any legitmate purposes. Nobody uses telnet or port 23 anymore save muds.
Iridiel2006-04-03 11:26:39
Doing that kind of mirroring would mean that lusternia is helping you use internet in a fraudulent way (If it's blocked it's because your company/school/parents don't want you to use lusternia) and being as they're americans probably somebody could sue.
So, why bothering?
So, why bothering?
Morik2006-04-03 12:28:38
Pish. Some people think not looking at hotmail is fraudulent.
That, and naive (stupid!) network administrators who learnt their craft from a textbook "Network Administration in 30 days! Honest!" have a list of "bad stuff" to block. Telnet is one of them. ICMP is another: and then they wonder why people can't connect to their websites.
That, and naive (stupid!) network administrators who learnt their craft from a textbook "Network Administration in 30 days! Honest!" have a list of "bad stuff" to block. Telnet is one of them. ICMP is another: and then they wonder why people can't connect to their websites.